ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: What are the prevalence, incidence and mortality rates of cancer among individuals aged 60 or older on a national, regional, and global scale? What factors affect differences in cancer survival between older and younger adults? RECENT FINDINGS: The epidemiological literature on cancer in older adults, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and that focusing on the oldest adults, is expanding. These studies consistently show increasing global cancer incidence rates in older populations. Recent research also highlights a widening survival gap between middle-aged and older adults, with the stage at diagnosis being the primary driver. More research is needed to describe the cancer burden in older adults, especially focusing on the oldest population and LMICs, to better understand global healthcare challenges. Additionally, further exploring patient-related, clinical, and tumour-related factors which drive age-related survival differences could improve cancer outcomes in older adults.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have revealed age-related inequalities in colorectal cancer care. Increasing levels of frailty in an ageing population may be contributing to this, but quantifying frailty in population-based studies is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, validity and reliability of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the Secondary Care Administrative Records Frailty (SCARF) index and the frailty syndromes (FS) measures in a national colorectal cancer cohort. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based study using 136,008 patients with colorectal cancer treated within the English National Health Service. METHODS: Each measure was generated in the dataset to assess their feasibility. The diagnostic codes used in each measure were compared with those in the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Validity was assessed using the prevalence of frailty and relationship with 1-year survival. The Brier score and the c-statistic were used to assess performance and discriminative ability of models with included each measure. RESULTS: All measures demonstrated feasibility, validity and reliability. Diagnostic codes used in SCARF and CCI have considerable overlap. Prevalence of frailty determined by each differed; SCARF allocating 55.4% of the population to the lowest risk group compared with 85.1% (HFRS) and 81.2% (FS). HFRS and FS demonstrated the greatest difference in 1-year overall survival between those with the lowest and highest measured levels of frailty. Differences in model performance were marginal. CONCLUSIONS: HFRS, SCARF and FS all have value in quantifying frailty in routine administrative health care datasets. The most suitable measure will depend on the context and requirements of each individual epidemiological study.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Feasibility Studies , Frailty , Humans , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Aged , Frailty/diagnosis , Frailty/epidemiology , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Aged, 80 and over , Risk Assessment/methods , Prevalence , Middle Aged , Geriatric Assessment/methods , England/epidemiology , Frail Elderly/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , Age Factors , Predictive Value of TestsABSTRACT
We read the study of Bhatt and colleagues titled "Longitudinal changes in cognitive and physical function and health-related quality of life in older adults with acute myeloid leukaemia" published in Journal of Geriatric Oncology in January 2024. We commented in regards to the importance of the wording to be used when interpreting the results of research studies.
Subject(s)
Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute , Quality of Life , Humans , Aged , Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/drug therapyABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown a disproportionate rise in cancer incidence in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) due to rapid population ageing. This study aims to describe the cancer incidence in adults aged 60 years and older in LMICs to inform cancer control planning. Using the latest GLOBOCAN estimates for 2020, we describe the cancer incidence and the top five cancer sites among adults aged 60 years and older living in LMICs. We also project the incidence in 2040 by applying population projections, assuming no changes in incidence rates and risk profiles over time. In 2020, 6.3 million new cancer cases were diagnosed in older adults in LMICs, constituting over half of the global incidence burden (55%). In females aged 60 years and older living in LMICs, breast, lung, colon, stomach, and cervix uteri were the most frequent cancer types representing 51% of the total number of new cancer cases in older females. In males aged 60 years and older living in LMICs, lung, prostate, stomach, liver and colon were the most frequent cancer types representing 58% of the total number of new cancer cases in this subgroup. Variations were observed between income categories. The number of new cancer diagnoses in adults aged 60 years and older living in LMICs will almost double by 2040, reaching 11.5 million new cancer cases. The greatest increase is expected to happen in lower-income countries (+158% in lower-middle-income countries (excluding India) and +99% in low-income countries versus +38% in upper-middle-income countries). In conclusion, our findings call for an urgent adaptation of healthcare systems in LMICs by developing geriatric oncology and by including older adults in research, clinical guidelines, insurance schemes and cancer prevention policies.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The number of older adults with cancer is increasing worldwide. These patients' unique care needs, arising from comorbidity, polypharmacy and frailty, often necessitate healthcare professionals (HCPs) to rely on their own attitudes and assumptions to a greater extent when making decisions due to limited evidence. Differences in patient and HCP attitudes can impact treatment decisions and patient outcomes. There is limited research, however, on HCP attitudes in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer. This scoping review aims to explore the attitudes of HCPs in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The electronic databases PubMed, Elsevier Embase, Medline (from Embase) and EBSCO CINAHL Complete will be searched on 4 July 2023 to identify eligible studies based on the developed inclusion and exclusion criteria. No restrictions on study period, geography or language will be applied. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by teams of two reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. The review findings will be presented as tables and in a narrative summary.This scoping review follows the framework of Arksey and O'Malley with the Levac extension. Data extraction and analysis will be performed to identify patterns and gaps in the literature to provide an overview of the attitudes of HCPs in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is needed. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences, providing insights to improve treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer and guide future interventions for HCPs in geriatric oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered on Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T7FD3.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Neoplasms , Aged , Humans , Frailty/therapy , Neoplasms/therapy , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Attitude of Health Personnel , Clinical Decision-MakingABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Countries with large economies are observing a growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) older adults, many of whom will be affected by cancer. Little is known about the experiences and factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in this population. The purposes of this scoping review are: (1) to summarize the published literature on cancer treatment-related decision-making with this population; and (2) to identify potential differences in how cancer treatment decisions are made compared to non-CALD older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive multidatabase search, screening 1,139 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we analyzed the data using tabular and narrative summary. RESULTS: We extracted data from six studies that met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative and two qualitative; five from the United States and one from Canada. Three themes were identified: (1) barriers to decision-making, (2) the influence of family and friends on decisionmaking, and (3) differences in uptake and types of treatment received between CALD and non-CALD older adults. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive review of treatment decision-making among CALD older adults with cancer highlights the paucity of research in this area. The findings are limited to North American populations and may not represent experiences in other regions of the world. Future research should focus on studying their treatment-related decision-making experiences to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Public Opinion , Humans , United States , Aged , Neoplasms/therapy , CanadaSubject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Cardiovascular Diseases , Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient's general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.
Subject(s)
Geriatric Assessment , Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Quality of Life , Neoplasms/therapy , Medical Oncology , PolicyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: We described the patterns of chemotherapy use and outcomes in patients diagnosed with stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by age in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective population-based study, we included 20,716 (62% stage IV) patients with NSCLC diagnosed from 2014 to 2017 treated with chemotherapy. We used the Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment (SACT) dataset to describe changes in treatment plan and estimated 30 and 90-day mortality rates and median, 6-, and 12-month overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier estimator for patients aged <75 and ≥ 75 by stage. Using flexible hazard regression models we assessed the impact of age, stage, treatment intent (stage III), and performance status on survival. RESULTS: Patients aged ≥75 years were less likely to receive two or more regimens, more likely to have their treatment modified because of comorbidities and their doses reduced compared to younger patients. However, early mortality rates and overall survival were similar across ages, apart from the oldest patients with stage III disease. DISCUSSION: This observational study demonstrates that age is associated with treatment patterns in an older population with advanced NSCLC in England. Although this reflects a pre-immunotherapy period, given the median age of NSCLC patients and increasingly older population, these results suggest older patients (>75 yrs) may benefit from more intense treatments.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Retrospective Studies , Neoplasm Staging , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Loneliness is common in older adults. Cancer and its treatments can heighten loneliness and result in poor outcomes. However, little is known about loneliness in older adults with cancer. Our objective was to provide an overview of the prevalence of loneliness, contributing factors, evolution during the cancer trajectory, impact on treatment, and interventions to reduce loneliness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including studies on loneliness in adults with cancer aged ≥65. Original, published studies of any designs (excluding case reports) were included. A two-step screening process was performed. RESULTS: Out of 8,720 references, 19 studies (11 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 2 mixed-methods), mostly from the United States, Netherlands, and/or Belgium, and most published from 2010, were included. Loneliness was assessed by the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, and the UCLA loneliness scale. Up to 50% of older adults felt lonely. Depression and anxiety were often correlated with loneliness. Loneliness may increase over the first 6-12 months during treatment. One study assessed the feasibility of an intervention aiming at reducing primarily depression and anxiety and secondarily, loneliness in patients with cancer aged ≥70 after five 45-min sessions with a mental health professional. No studies investigated the impact of loneliness on cancer care and health outcomes. DISCUSSION: This review documents the scarcity of literature on loneliness in older adults with cancer. The negative impacts of loneliness on health in the general population are well known; a better understanding of the magnitude and impact of loneliness in older adults with cancer is urgently warranted.
Subject(s)
Loneliness , Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Loneliness/psychology , Public Opinion , Neoplasms/therapy , Anxiety , NetherlandsABSTRACT
Age-related differences in colon and rectal cancer survival have been observed, even after accounting for differences in background mortality. To determine how stage, tumour site, and histology contribute to these differences, we extracted age-specific one-year relative survival ratio (RS) stratified by these factors. We used colon and rectal cancer cases diagnosed between 2012 and 2016 from 18 United States Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registries. For colon cancer, 1-year RS ranged from 87.8 % [95 % Confidence Interval: 87.5-88.2] in the 50-64-year-olds to 62.3 % [61.3-63.3] in 85-99-year-olds and for rectal cancer ranged from 92.3 % [91.8-92.7] to 65.0 % [62.3-67.5]. With respect to stage, absolute differences in RS between 50-64-year-olds and 75-84-year-olds increased with increasing stage (from 6 [5-7] %-points in localised disease to 27 [25-29] %-points in distant disease) and were the highest for cancers of unknown stage (> 28 %-points). Age-related differences in survival were smallest for persons with tumours in the right-sided colon (8 [7-9] %-points) and largest for tumours of the colon without tumour site further specified (25 [21-29] %-points). With respect to histology, differences ranged from 7.4 % to 10.6 %-points for cancers with one of the three primary histologies (adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma) and were several-fold higher (42 %-points) for those with unknown/other histology (< 6 % of cases). Because age-related differences in survival were observed for all histologies and tumour sites, RS differences are unlikely to be driven by differences in the distribution of these factors by age. Differences in stage distribution by age are likely to contribute toward age-related differences in survival. Within stage groups, age differences in survival could be explained by frailty and/or therapy. Future studies incorporating data on treatment and geriatric conditions including frailty and comorbidity would support further understanding of the age gap in colon and rectal cancer survival.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Colonic Neoplasms , Frailty , Rectal Neoplasms , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Aged , Frailty/pathology , Rectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colonic Neoplasms/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiology , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Neoplasm StagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In observational studies, the risk of immortal-time bias (ITB) increases with the likelihood of early death, itself increasing with age. We investigated how age impacts the magnitude of ITB when estimating the effect of surgery on 1-year overall survival (OS) in patients with Stage IV colon cancer aged 50-74 and 75-84 in England. METHODS: Using simulations, we compared estimates from a time-fixed exposure model to three statistical methods addressing ITB: time-varying exposure, delayed entry and landmark methods. We then estimated the effect of surgery on OS using a population-based cohort of patients from the CORECT-R resource and conducted the analysis using the emulated target trial framework. RESULTS: In simulations, the magnitude of ITB was larger among older patients when their probability of early death increased or treatment was delayed. The bias was corrected using the methods addressing ITB. When applied to CORECT-R data, these methods yielded a smaller effect of surgery than the time-fixed exposure approach but effects were similar in both age groups. CONCLUSION: ITB must be addressed in all longitudinal studies, particularly, when investigating the effect of exposure on an outcome in different groups of people (e.g., age groups) with different distributions of exposure and outcomes.
Subject(s)
Colonic Neoplasms , Aged , Humans , Bias , Colonic Neoplasms/surgery , England/epidemiology , Probability , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Cancer survival has improved since the 1990s, but to different extents across age groups, with a disadvantage for older adults. We aimed to quantify age-related differences in relative survival (RS-1-year and 1-year conditioning on surviving 1 year) for 10 common cancer types by stage at diagnosis. We used data from 18 United States Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registries and included cancers diagnosed in 2012 to 2016 followed until December 31, 2017. We estimated absolute differences in RS between the 50 to 64 age group and the 75 to 84 age group. The smallest differences were observed for prostate and breast cancers (1.8%-points [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-2.1] and 1.9%-points [95% CI: 1.5-2.3], respectively). The largest was for ovarian cancer (27%-points, 95% CI: 24-29). For other cancers, differences ranged between 7 (95% CI: 5-9, esophagus) and 18%-points (95% CI: 17-19, pancreas). Except for pancreatic cancer, cancer type and stage combinations with very high (>95%) or very low (<40%) 1-year RS tended to have smaller age-related differences in survival than those with mid-range prognoses. Age-related differences in 1-year survival conditioning on having survived 1-year were small for most cancer and stage combinations. The broad variation in survival differences by age across cancer types and stages, especially in the first year, age-related differences in survival are likely influenced by amenability to treatment. Future work to measure the extent of age-related differences that are avoidable, and identify how to narrow the survival gap, may have most benefit by prioritizing cancers with relatively large age-related differences in survival (eg, stomach, esophagus, liver and pancreas).
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Neoplasms , Male , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Aged , SEER Program , Registries , Prognosis , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Ageism towards older adults with cancer may impact treatment decisions, healthcare interactions, and shape health/psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) To synthesize the literature on ageism towards older adults with cancer in oncology and (2) To identify interventions that address ageism in the healthcare context applicable to oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted an exhaustive multi-database search, screening 30,926 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we conducted tabular, narrative, and textual synthesis. RESULTS: We extracted data on 133 papers. Most (n = 44) were expert opinions, reviews, and letters to editors highlighting the negative impacts of ageism, expressing the need for approaches addressing heterogeneity of older adults, and calling for increased clinical trial inclusion for older adults. Qualitative studies (n = 3) described healthcare professionals' perceived influence of age on treatment recommendations, whereas quantitative studies (n = 32) were inconclusive as to whether age-related bias impacted treatment recommendations/outcomes or survival. Intervention studies (n = 54) targeted ageism in pre/post-licensure healthcare professionals and reported participants' improvement in knowledge and/or attitudes towards older adults. No interventions were found that had been implemented in oncology. DISCUSSION: Concerns relating to ageism in cancer care are consistently described in the literature. Interventions exist to address ageism; however, none have been developed or tested in oncology settings. Addressing ageism in oncology will require integration of geriatric knowledge/interventions to address conscious and unconscious ageist attitudes impacting care and outcomes. Interventions hold promise if tailored for cancer care settings. 249/250.
Subject(s)
Ageism , Neoplasms , Aged , Humans , Ageism/psychology , Delivery of Health Care , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
Background: We described patterns of chemotherapy use and outcomes in patients with advanced small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in relation to age using the Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment dataset. Method: In total, 7,966 patients SCLC (67.6% stage IV) diagnosed between 2014-17 in England, treated with chemotherapy were followed up through 2017. Patterns of chemotherapy use, 30- and 90- mortality rates, and 6- and 12-month and median overall survival (OS) from the initiation of chemotherapy were compared between those below and above the age of 75. Results: Older patients were 6-7 times less likely to receive curative treatment than younger patients regardless of stage. They had more frequent adjustments of treatment and dose reduction (stage III). There were no age differences in dose reduction in stage IV, treatment delayed or stopped earlier than planned. 30-day mortality rates were similar across age groups in stage III SCLC (~4%). Older patients had higher 90-days mortality rates and poorer OS than younger peers. In both stages, OS decreased around the age of 70-75 and were worse in patients with performance status scores ≥2. Conclusion: This study offers a snapshot of chemotherapy use and outcomes in advanced SCLC, notably in older patients, in the pre-immunotherapy era.
ABSTRACT
We estimated the degree to which language used in the high-profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations; examined disconnects between language and recommendations; identified the most common linking phrases; and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched for and screened 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, 3 reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as none (no causal implication) in 13.8%, weak in 34.2%, moderate in 33.2%, and strong in 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was "associate" (45.7%). Reviewers' ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous; over half of reviewers rated "association" as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding "causal" words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Language , Humans , CausalityABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prediction of all-cause mortality is an important component of shared decision-making across the cancer care continuum, particularly in older adults with limited life expectancy, for whom there is an increased risk of over-diagnosis and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, several international societies recommend the use of all-cause mortality risk prediction tools when making decisions regarding screening and treatment in geriatric oncology. Here, we review some practical aspects of the utilization of those tools and dissect the characteristics of those most employed in geriatric oncology, highlighting both their advantages and their limitations.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Life Expectancy , Decision Making , Decision Making, Shared , Mass Screening , Geriatric AssessmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is an important cause of death worldwide. The number of years of life lost (YLL) due to prostate cancer is a metric of the toll of prostate cancer and using projections of demographic changes, can be used to measure future burden. METHODS: Prostate cancer mortality data by country and world region was retrieved from the Global Cancer Observatory and the World Health Organization mortality data set, and life expectancy was from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. We estimated YLL as the difference between age at death in people with prostate cancer and remaining life expectancy for people of the same age in the general population. We also estimated the age-standardized YLL rates per 100,000 males over 50 and the average annual percentage change in YLL rates over the period 2000-2019 and the number of YLL for the year 2040 by applying population projections to the 2020 YLL rates. RESULTS: In 2020, 3.5 million person-years of life were lost due to prostate cancer in males over 50, and 40% of YLL were in those aged over 75. Age-standardized rates varied greatly between and within regions. Over the last two decades, rates of YLL have increased in many Asian and African countries while they have decreased in northern American and European countries. Globally, YLL are anticipated to double by 2040 to reach 7.5 million, with the greatest increases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. CONCLUSION: There are wide variations in the burden of prostate cancer globally as measured by YLL. The burden of prostate cancer is projected to increase over time and appears to be highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. It will be critical to plan and implement programs to reduce the burden of prostate cancer globally.
Subject(s)
Life Expectancy , Prostatic Neoplasms , Aged , Caribbean Region/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate whether self-rated health (SRH) predict frailty and its components among community dwellers aged 75 years and older. METHODS: We ran a cross-sectional and prospective analysis from 643 and 379 participants of the Bordeaux Center (France) of the Three-City Study, respectively. We assessed SRH using a single question with 5 response options. We defined frailty as having at least 3 out of the following 5 criteria: weight loss, exhaustion, slowness, weakness, and low energy expenditure. We used multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: At baseline, poor SRH was significantly associated with frailty (odds ratio = 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9-9.5) and its components except for weakness. In the prospective analysis on nonfrail participants, poor SRH was associated with the 4-year risk of slowness (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1-2.6) but not with that of frailty (HR = 1.6; 95% CI: 0.9-2.9) or the other components. CONCLUSIONS: In a French cohort of community dwellers aged 75 years or older, poorer SRH was associated with concomitant frailty and 70% higher risk of slowness over 4 years.